Sounding an optimistic note that 2012 would be a year of “hope, optimism and recovery,” San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed delivered his State of the City address at the San Jose Civic Auditorium Thursday night. Hours after being pummeled in the media over an actuary’s claim of inflated pension projections, Reed sounded confident and statesmanlike, saying that he wanted “ to thank the leaders of our employee unions who have remained engaged and stayed at the table for many hours, days and months of difficult discussions.“
“I appreciate your hard work,” Reed said, “and I still hope that we will be able to reach an agreement on fiscal reforms.”
Josh Koehn was at the event and his live notes on the speech appear on Twitter.—Editor
Citing John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed delivered his sixth State of the City Address Thursday at the San Jose Civic Auditorium, and two things stood out from the event. First, the mayor looked as loose and comfortable on stage as he has at any point in his tenure as mayor. And second, the man knows how to stick to his talking points—there was hardly anything new to announce.
“Over the past 10 years, San Jose has faced enormous fiscal challenges,” Reed said. “But through hard work, creativity and innovation, we have made major progress. That’s why 2012 will be a year of hope, optimism, and recovery.”
Matt Mahood, newly-named CEO of the San Jose/Silicon Valley Chamber of Chamber of Commerce, introduced the mayor, and the best news of the evening—job growth—seemed to be a victory for both the chamber and the mayor.
“While we haven’t fully recovered from the Great Recession,” Reed said, “I’m pleased to report that the San Jose metropolitan area tied for the highest rate of job growth of all U.S. metro areas in 2011, and we now have 25,000 more jobs than a year ago.”
There were a couple claims of success that were somewhat questionable.
“Two years ago, County Superintendent of Schools, Chuck Weis and I launched the SJ2020 initiative with a goal of eliminating the achievement gap in San Jose public schools,” Reed said. “Forty percent of our children were not performing at their grade level, including 60 percent of our Latino and 60 percent of our African American children. No big city in the country has solved this intractable problem, but we can’t let that stop us.”
The mayor then cited two successful local schools: “Kipp Hartwood Academy has reduced the gap to 4 percent in 8th grade algebra, and the James McEntee Academy reduced their 3rd grade reading gap to 3 percent.” But as Chris Stampolis noted in a San Jose Inside column last month, “Even after county staff learned of significant miscalculations” (of testing student achievement, “leaders of several low-performing middle schools were rewarded with certificates, applause and photos with Dr. Weis and San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed.”
The mayor also said that gang-related violence was down, yet the murder rate was the highest in years, and many of those killings were gang related.
And in a subtle nod to the growing furor over the mayor’s use of the number $650 million in unfunded liability, due to the pension crisis, the mayor talked as a retirement costs spreadsheet was shown. “Ten years ago, San Jose spent $73 million on retirement benefits,” he said. “This year, we spent $245 million on retirement benefits. These are not projections or assumptions. They are actual dollars spent. Retirement benefits now cost the city more than 50 percent of base payroll and consume over 20 percent of our general fund budget. Every dollar the City pays for retirement costs is a dollar we can’t spend on services for our residents.”
Overall, there seemed to be more optimism at this year’s address than last year, and that could be because the mayor is closer than ever to getting pension reform in front of voters.
“I look forward to discussing these issues with you over the next few months, but talk will only become reality if we implement our Fiscal Reform Plan. With your support, we can and we will make that happen,” Reed said. “And when we do, 2012 will be a great year of Hope, Optimism and Recovery; the year in which we overcome our greatest challenges; the year in which we finally turn the corner on a decade of budget deficits and service cuts; and the year that we put San Jose back on the path to becoming a great city.”
This just in…Josh Koehn will be late with his report about the speech, apparently he fell into such a deep sleep during the speech that he just woke up and is now getting into the office.
Proposed headline:
Reed seeking criminal defense lawyer to fight ethics charges!
Well we know where the San Jose mercury stands on this issue. Surprised it even made it to to local page.
This city is in such bad shape thanks to Chuck. Funny not one word out of Deb’s mouth. What a great city manager!
There is very detailed memo from the City Manager. It is linked in the article below. It provides the real facts. Glad you agree she is a great City Manager.
she is as guilty as Chuck, no spine just a big check!
He might be the worst offender
10 days into February and we already have 4 murders. Thanks Chuck for taking public safety so seriously. Lets layoff some more officers. Better yet lets just contract public safety out altogether.
Wonder if that IBM computer can predict victim #5!!!!
The mayor also said that gang-related violence was down, yet the murder rate was the highest in years, and many of those killings were gang related.
Let’s see..gang violence down…homicide rate dramatically… and most are gang related…
selling the public a 650 million dollar projection that is 300 million off to pass a measure in June…
Wow is this guy out of touch with reality!
My God, This guy will never quit lying!
“But Reed cautioned the crowd that the city is “not out of the woods yet,” and he closed by calling on residents to back his fiscal reform measure, calling it necessary “to eliminate problems so they do not burden future generations.”
In other words, you could care less about the ongoing mediation process because you are going forward with a ballot measure regardless what the unions offer.
The problem is you Chuck and your BS council buddies, you want nothing more than to crush the unions with lies and illegal ballot measures as you leave. Don’t let the door hit your behind as you bury this once great city.
I hope real SJ voters see this is not about pension reform because they have and continue to come to the table to offer concessions. This is a angry man hell bent to crush the unions and flat out lie to the voters.
What about downtown? Downtown is completely ignored by Chuck Reed! We need a new mayor!
DT is pretty much ignored by 98% of the population of SJ.
DT has been lavished with $billions over the last 35+ years, and for what? It’s still dead most weeknights, and all day Saturday and Sunday; plus many of those who come to DT Thursday-Saturday nights after 10:00 p.m. are folks we’d rather not have there, or anywhere for that matter.
The grafitti is growing exponentially; more people sleeping in doorways; St. James Park, Fountain Alley, Zanotto’s Alley, and the SJ Rep Plaza outside The Club House are all drug emporiums. DT is reverting back to its former Skid Row status, despite all the RDA spending.
The 88 & Axis put out false sales figures. You can tell how many units have been sold by counting how few lights are on at night.
Hopefully they’ll do better with the new “downtown” in North SJ.
What a complete waste of taxpayer money on downtown that’s set on a spectacular fall! It’s totally irresponsible on part of the city and its residents to allow a huge waste of money on downtown and to abandon it and have the downtown core to never live its potential. Downtown will only be a shell of its for false revitalization self and be a haven for criminals, homeless people, mentally ills and pandhandlers. It’s the real life Blade Runner! Very sad!
Nobody gives a crap about downtown SJ except for McEnerey and the other rich developers who own land down there. McEnerey set in motion a 3+ billion dollar sucking pit and look what we have to show for it.
No downtown, no soul! A great city is with a great downtown. So, I guess San Jose will be a bad city with a bad, moribound downtown. You can never have a great or a good city with a medeocre or bad downtown.
“Ten years ago, San Jose spent $73 million on retirement benefits,” he said. “This year, we spent $245 million on retirement benefits. These are not projections or assumptions. They are actual dollars spent. Retirement benefits now cost the city more than 50 percent of base payroll and consume over 20 percent of our general fund budget. Every dollar the City pays for retirement costs is a dollar we can’t spend on services for our residents.”
If the mayor wants us to reference the past in assessing current events, then next time he speaks on the ballpark issue we should expect him to provide a 2002 dollar value on all the land involved in the project; that which was already owned by the city, that which was purchased and/or improved by the city, and of course that which was just made available at pennies on the dollar to the mayor’s buddy, Lew Wolff. No (expletive deleted) way would “Mr. Transparency” be honest enough to do such a thing. No, when it comes to his pet projects and rich friends, Chuck Reed wants to keep the public focused on today’s harsh economic realities.
Our lying mayor knows damn well that the housing crash, not runaway benefits, was the primary culprit in the big jump in retirement costs, but what he doesn’t want the public to know is the huge role that his actions and policies have played in making things worse. To put it in simple terms, Chuck Reed single-handedly caused the largest migration of city employees from active to retired status in this city’s history. Virtually every retirement-eligible employee bailed, creating both a run on the various pension funds (already reeling from the economic crash) and a huge decline in the number of active employees paying into them. When you add in the impact of massive layoffs (more fund withdrawals coupled with fewer contributions), you have to at least entertain the notion that the mayor’s strategy was to aggravate rather than alleviate the crisis.
Now with hard evidence that he lied to the public with the clear intent of exaggerating the crisis and further harming the city workforce, the mayor has surrendered his personal credibility as well as that of his policies and supporters on the council. Either we assume that Sal Liccardo, Pierluigi Oliverio, Pete Constant, Madison Nguyen, et al.—everyone of whom claimed to understand the pension issue, were either in on the Big Lie or were too stupid to catch it. No matter… today they’re all tainted with the Big Stink. Hopefully, tomorrow they’ll all be in that rough-and-tumble private sector they like so much to talk about.
Hit that one right out of the park (pun absolutely intended!!). As usual, your analysis is spot on. Another point I would like to add is we are in a turnover cycle of employees going to retirement. The police and fire departments, as well as other city departments, I imagine, have become RAPIDLY youthful overnight. The mass exodus of people leaving does not help. Retirement costs will drop as less people retire.
All you union bashers on here, I would like to remind you, it was the media that began this investigation 2 months ago (at least that’s what NBC said). No union stunt here. We’ve been begging for our voice to be heard for some time. Here’s to hoping the traction that is needed to get the corruption exposed, finally gets off the ground!!!
Of COURSE retirement eligible employees bailed, BS Monitor. We’d been funding a system that was so generous for so long that the decision was an easy one for many of them. The only way to retain employees under this ridiculous plans is to continually up the ante, struggling to outbid ourselves so that staying and working actually is a more attractive option than cutting and running with the outlandish benefits we were so foolish to promise.
And anyway what’s new? I don’t know how many times I’ve been lectured on this site about how very few actually work the full 30 year career. ‘Public safety’ has been cutting and running forever it seems. And why? Not because of the mean, rotten, hurtful actions of an ogre of a Mayor, No. They were retiring early simply because they liked the numbers. This hardassed pennypinching pension system of ours makes retiring early a very attractive option.
Dear John , ( Im sure thats not the first time you’ve heard that phrase) you are either so filled with hatred or you just dont understand ! the Minimum amount of time is 20 yrs , but you are mistaken It is not just ” a very few ” who work 30 yrs. it all depends on the age that employee was hired. Do you honestly want 60 yr old FF or PD officers( or if the Mayor has his way 68 yrs old) you sound like a bitter individual who either regrets not going into public safety or Couldnt pass the test.
Our lying mayor knows damn well that the housing crash, not runaway benefits, was the primary culprit in the big jump in retirement costs…
Granted, this is an area where I have little to no understanding, so if you could expand on this statement that would be great.
While reduced housing prices equals less property tax revenue, what does the housing crash have to do with retirement costs?
Thanks.
The housing and and financial crash affected the investments of the retirement funds just like everyone. This affects the funding which causes the cities contribution to increase.
We know how the liars are, but big Deb has been very quiet!
I call bullsh%$….I guess you can use numbers/stats (made up or unreal) to further your agenda. Ask a real cop (not a double dipping, retired deputy) about the increasing gang crime in Shark City. Ask the cops that work in GIU, Assaults, or God forbid what’s left of Patrol about gang crime. Their workload must be non-existent. Since gang crime is down let’s make GIU go out and write traffic tickets so P.O. can be happy…….P.O. you still are the greatest!!!!
thank you for the truth!
“ to thank the leaders of our employee unions who have remained engaged and stayed at the table for many hours, days and months of difficult discussions.“
Are you F-ing kidding me!
The City negotiators are the ones constantly declaring impasse and walking away from the bargaining tables. Labor then literally begs the City to come back to the tables to continue negotiating only to be ignored by Council and most often have terms imposed upon them.
Shame on you “Honorable” Mayor!
Want to know why the Merky News keeps on bashing Unions? Because the Publisher is Chuck Reed’s brother-in-law. And that is also why the newspaper kept it off the front page! Lets hope the Elections Commission finds Felony violations! See ya mayor Burns! HAHAHA
the strength of any society is it’s culture and we should be aware of it’s impact.
John Galt,
Identifying the “we” who’ve been funding the system for these many decades is a matter of perspective. I understand that from your seat that “we” is the poor taxpayer, his pocket picked clean by politicians kowtowing to public employee unions. This is the image that Chuck Reed has been selling voters, hoping to create enough anger to turn them off to the facts and into an angry mob.
My perspective differs from yours. I don’t see the pension plan as something separate from an employee’s hourly pay or medical benefits, for the simple reason that they’ve always been offered and negotiated as components of a single compensation package: the pay for the labor provided. The decision, thirty years ago, of a young jobseeker to come to work for SJPD was, in part, affected by the package offered. It was one way that the city competed for the best qualified prospects. The going rate at the time consisted of a modest salary, good medical benefits, and the opportunity to earn entry into an attractive pension plan.
Once hired that young police officer will, for his first decade on the job, receive his hourly pay, hardly use his medical benefits, and contribute a significant percentage of his hourly pay to the pension plan. His low hourly pay constitutes a bargain for the city, as this energetic and idealistic young man will likely work and absorb risk at a pace far above the average (a pace that, over a career, is unsustainable). His hardly used medical benefits will represent an important factor in keeping down the cost of insurance premiums.
Up until his 10th anniversary that officer is not a vested member of the pension plan. Oh, the plan has taken his money and has used it to invest and earn, but should that officer leave the department during that first decade he will receive not one dime of earnings from his biweekly contributions—ever. Those considerable earnings will remain in the fund and continue to grow exponentially. This is tantamount to free money.
The real power of the pension fund is its 25 to 30 year* hold on its investment earnings. This is no pyramid scheme. This is the reason why the fund was able to absorb the huge number of retirements that began in 1995 (caused by a growth spike that began in the late 60’s) and yet remain fully funded (at no additional taxpayer expense). It is also, regrettably, the reason that former mayor Ron Gonzales was able to use the fund as his personal treasure chest and buy political support from labor leaders blinded by their own egos.
The fund is sound and viable, but it is not bullet-proof. It took a major hit when the market did, an event that caught the City in its usual state of readiness: woefully unready. The City of San Jose was as ill-prepared for the housing collapse as was every other reckless fool who’d financed himself to the hilt to pay for pleasures and toys (Chuck Reed was, as a councilman, one of the fools).
I believe that police and fire have offered to scale back pension payouts to pre-Gonzales rates. That should be, on their part, reform enough (professional actuaries can determine that—unless Chuck is allowed to some more figures out of his you-know-what). But if this city can’t get itself out of the housing business—and end its underwriting of identity politics, then very soon nothing will be safe… including you and me.
* The notion of the “full thirty” as some sort of measure of employee commitment is misleading, primarily because there are so many factors at play. The career patrol officer who retires in his fifties after 25 years (but before 30) may be doing himself and the city a favor by moving his tired, worn, top-step body onto the pension roll and making room in the police budget for the hiring of a young, cheaper replacement. Same with a field supervisor, who will, by retiring, make room for a promotion and a hire. That said, prior to the arrival of our ogre of a mayor, the majority of line officers worked well past reaching retirement eligibility, many of them involved in recruit training or otherwise putting to good use their experience and expertise.
So they ARE vested for retirement benefits after working for ten years. See, that’s what I thought!Back on the Beattie/Lopez Back To Work blog a few weeks ago I said it was ten years and was soundly rapped on the knuckles and scolded that “it’s five years you idiot” by a hit and run poster who routinely accuses me of ‘talking out of my a$$’ as he so cleverly puts it. Not that that’s any of your concern BSM.
But the details of the retirement sytem are indeed complex and I don’t think I’ve ever claimed to be an authority on the subject. As a matter of fact it may be this very complexity that keeps many would be Objectionists intimidated into silence even though they sense that something isn’t quite right. Nobody’s more of an authority on a subject than the people who are immersed in it so there’s a natural tendency for the outsider to accept the insider’s word without question- even though they may very well be being innocently misinformed, bullshitted, or even bullied.
With that in mind, I must ask you whether what you wrote about employees having to leave behind their retirement contributions if they fail to put in ten years is true as far as you understand it? Something I read on a PDF page about reciprocity agreements seemed to imply that they are free to take their contribution back plus interest if they move on before ten years.
And just so you don’t get the wrong idea about the tenor of my question, BS Monitor, I know that YOU are neither a bully nor a bullshitter.
Mayor Greed , you are Pathetic. you destroy Public Safety and then take credit for “Reduced Gang violence” , but fail to mention the soaring Homicide rate. You are a total Politician , You are more than willing to take credit for others hard work but none of the responsibility. you are pushing an illegal ballot measure that will cost the residents of San Jose into the millions of dollars only to lose in court.Does that seem fiscally responsible. You drive this city into the ground for your own personal gain but refuse to take ownership of your many lies. This city has had enough of you , your clown court, and Doug Figone. this City can only fix itself when you are all out of office
Just saw that SJ ranks #2 in the nation in richest cities where no one wants to move
2. San Jose, Calif.
MSA: San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, Calif.
Metro movers ratio: 2.6
Median home price: $546,000
Home value decline from peak: -32.5%
Unemployment: 9.8%
Forecast change in home price through 3Q 2012: -3.8%
San Jose’s median home price is the third highest in the country.
The median home price in the metropolitan region of San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara is $546,000, the third highest in the country. The median family income is the fourth highest in the country. Home prices may simply too high for many people. The median mortgage payment at the peak of home prices as a percentage of median monthly family income was 46%. This is one of the highest rates in the country, reflecting the exceptionally large burden home prices place on residents in the area.
From tonight’s KNTV’s follow-up report at 5PM… interview with Chuck Reed:
JENNA SUSKO: “But why would you use that number (650 million) instead of what the actuary provided…”
REED (jumping in): “Well, we used both…”
JENNA SUSKO (completing her question): “… instead of 400?”
REED: “No, we used both numbers.”
JENNA SUSKO: “That number was used when calling for a fiscal emergency… that number was used in public… that number was used to say that we need pension reform.”
REED: “Well, we do need pension reform, and that number IS PART OF THE DISCUSSION.”
That number is part of the discussion? What an amazing and moronic admission. That number was, prior to the release of KNTV’s investigative report, NOTHING other than an inexcusable, irresponsible, deceptive invention. So what Chuck Reed is admitting to in this snippet of the interview is that he intentionally incorporated “an irresponsible, deceptive invention” into a critical, headline-grabbing part of the public pension discussion.
From where did the mayor draw his authority to do such a thing? Is there some secret part of the city code that grants him the right to utilize gross deception in his dealings with the public, or is this inexcusable behavior simply Chuck Reed being Chuck Reed? And please, let’s not confuse this incredible fabrication with the everyday fabrications that our elected officials use to steal for their friends. This lie resulted in an unprecedented event: the public condemnation of an entire workforce, an act that caused workers—most of whom have worked for the city for a decade or more, to give up wages damn few of them could afford to surrender.
If what Mayor Reed did does not constitute a crime, then it certainly should.
Not An Accountant,
The housing collapse severely wounded the markets into which public pension funds are invested, resulting in their immediate loss of billions of dollars and their ongoing loss of millions in anticipated earnings. For instance, a two billion dollar loss in a five billion dollar fund might, in a shaken economy, see that fund’s investment earnings reduced from 10% to 6%, leaving it with only three billion on hand and only $180 million (6% x three billion) in annual earnings (as opposed to the $500 million it would’ve earned from 10% x five billion). In just three years in such a scenario those lost investment returns would add an additional billion dollars to the original two billion dollar hit, leaving the fund three billion dollars short of where its managers once expected it to be.
Even if we ignore the impact the crash has had on tax revenues a city like San Jose, which is contractually obligated to make up the investment losses of its pension funds, would be challenged to meet its obligations. The current situation is unprecedented: San Jose’s pension scheme, benefitting as it has from numerous economic booms, has typically favored the City by allowing it to reduce or eliminate its annual fund obligations (allowing our politicians the opportunity to create a doomsday fund or blow it on nonsense—and you can guess what they did). But with this housing crash the City’s luck ran out. For the first time in the half-century of the the fund’s existence the unimaginable happened, primarily because the federal government screwed up to a degree previously thought unimaginable.
San Jose’s pension funds will likely heal themselves the same way they once grew strong: through investments. Of course there is the chance that the investment market will never recover sufficiently for that to happen, but if we accept that then we pretty much have to accept that our nation’s economic system is dead in the water. Ironically, Chuck Reed and Company, the folks who’ve convinced the public that pension funds are “unsustainable,” are the very same folks who wish to convince us that our local economy can be saved by a baseball team (and a losing one, at that). Go figure.
I agree with your observations. I recall being told in the late 90’s, before the Internet bubble burst, by a city retirement official that they expected their investment returns to continue at the same 10% rate they had seen during this boom. I asked how long they expected these kind of returns and she told me “forever”. I knew right then that our city officials were idiots. I tried to show that the annualized rate of return, using historical returns ( and I mean those dating back to the 30’s) were significantly less than the 10% they had recently seen. It was during this time that the city underfunded its obligations to the fund (because of the high rate of return and the city’s idiotic belief it would continue) that created this huge liability 10 years later. The unions exasperated the problem by paying out returns that exceeded 7.5% back to the retiree’s rather than reinvesting this money.
The other major problem with the police/fire retirement system was the lack of professional investment professionals on the board. The past board jumped on the bandwagon to invest heavily in mortgage backed securities, which we have all come to learn were toxic. This resulted in huge losses in the fund. Losses which cannot be recovered when the market turns, because the instrument they invested in is now worthless, unlike a market fund that can recover when the stocks in the portfolio regain market value.
So a few years ago I was at a Commonwealth Club speach by Leon Panetta and he shared this great quote from Neville Chamberlain. Neville had just been bounced from PM and replaced by a war time unity government led by Winston Churchill. His faction urged him to dig in and fight the good fight for workers and labor and all that. He took a stately pose and said “if we open a quarrel between our past and the present, we will lose our future.”
With that said, I’m ready to move on and figure out how San Jose can make a good community and municipal government that our kids and grandkids can enjoy. Pension reform will have to be a part of that. Second tier for new hires is obvious, but probably never going to be enough if you crunch the numbers with the current liability.
However, its just not fair to working folks to change the deal on the table mid-stream, especially for folks that have already put in 20 years and just starting to look forward to retirement now that the kids are out of the house. A reasonable and predictable shift over 10 years for all current employees to a new retirement system, coupled with 2nd tier for all new hires might see us through the crunch. I hope we take the time and put in the effort to get this right for all the stakeholders and not just push something that is draconian in the name of “fiscal crisis”.
I’m glad we’re working through our problems together and not just factionalizing for political points and personal gain. At least I hope we are…
And remember, unless you do 30 years you do not get 90%. And very few want to do 30, most are opting out as soon as the can or the younger ones have left for other cities but the city does not use these figures in their accounting and off the top of their heads estimates.
the city needs to right now account for retirees, hell I bet they do not even account for the ones that have passed away. And account for those who may retiree in the next 5 years.
Retiring at 20 years sounds good but does not get you that much because it is all back ended loaded.
Thanks all council and county representatives for making the East Side the dumping ground for the city of San Jose & County of Santa Clara.
John Galt,
Here’s the link for vesting details:
http://www.sjretirement.com/Uploads/PF/P&FFACTSTAFF; police 062611.pdf
As for the contributions of a less-than-ten-year employee, what I addressed was the earnings on contributions (approx. 25% employee and 75% city) , not the employee’s personal contributions (I don’t imagine that to be legal—otherwise the city would’ve figured out a way to do it).
Here’s an excerpt from a FAQs page:
“What happens to my retirement contributions when I terminate my employment with the city?”
The Department receives a copy of the Notice of Separation at which time they send a Return of Contributions packet giving the options available. If you have less than 10 years of service, you can either request a Return of Contributions (ROC) or request to have the contributions rolled over to an Individual Retirement Account (IRA). If you have more than 10 years, you can choose either of the above options, or you can choose to leave your contributions in the fund until you are eligible to retire and begin collecting a benefit. This is classified as a Deferred Vested retiree. At the beginning of the year in which you turn 55 years of age and 20 years have elapsed from date of membership, the Department will send an application for your completion. Your retirement date will be the date of your 55th birthday. Your personal contributions are yours, however the only way to collect any of the City’s contributions is to retire from City service and draw a monthly pension.
Other employees are vested at 5 years. Why the difference?
10 for police and fire
5 for everyone else
The thought is that firefighters and cops are not very mobile positions – it is hard to leave from one department and go to another (especially for fire). And you very, very, very rarely recruit a brand new person to join when they are 45 or 50, or even have someone lateral over at those ages.
On the other hand, if you are an attorney, accountant, engineer or some other similar position, the City might very well have people that come for a few years and then leave, or have people come to work for the City when they are 45 or 50 or 55. A 10 year vesting period would be a major obstacle to being able to recruit those people. So in those positions, 5 year vesting is used.
The City wants as long a vesting period as possible while still allowing it to recruit the talent it needs.